t+t_,_:'proving that he acted reasonably and diligently and in case of denial of a request thalsuch denial was justified shall be on the public lnformaiion officer.Pr-eqip31. Where the lnformation <strong>Commission</strong> at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is ofthe opirrion that the Public lnformation Officer has without -any reasonable cause andpersistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished informationwithin the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly givenincorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was th6 sJbjectof the request or obstfucted in any manner in furnishing the information, it may recommLnddisciplinary action against the public lnformation Officer.Protection for Work Done in Good Faith32. Section 21 of the Act provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shalllie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under theAct or any rule made thereunder. A Public lnformation Officer should, however, note that itwould be his responsibility to prove that his action was in good faith.33- The Central lnformation <strong>Commission</strong> prepares a report on the implementation of theprovisions of the RTI Act every year, which is laid before each House of lhe Parliameni. Thisreport, inter-alia, has to include information about the number of requesls made to each publicauthority, the number of decisions where the applicants were not entiiled to access todocuments requested for, the provisions of the Act under which these decisions were rnade and'the number of times such provisions were invoked, the amount of charges collected by eachpublic authority under the Act. Each Ministry/Department is required to collect such informationfrom all the public authorities under its jurisdiction and send the same to the <strong>Commission</strong>. ThePublic lnformation Officers should maintain the requisite information in this regard so that it maybe supplied to their administrative Ministry/Departrnent soon after the end oflhe year, which inturn may supply to the <strong>Commission</strong>.20
_ L/i-Part VFOR FIRST APPELLAIE AUTHOIRITIESFirst Appeal2. The information sought by an applicant should eilher be supplied to him or hisapplication should be rejected within the time prescribed by the Act. tt aciOitionat fee neeO Gthgrgedfrom the applicant, communication in this regard should be sent to him within the timelimit prescribed for sehding information. lf the applicant does not receive informalion or decisionabout rejection of request or communication about payment of additional fee within the specifiedtime, he can make an appeal lo the First Appellate Authority. Appeal can also be made if theapplicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Public lnformation Officer regarding supply ofinformation or the quantum of fee decided by the Public lnformation Officer,3 A third party can prefer an appeal to the First,Appellate Authority if it is not satisfied withthe decision made by the Public lnformation Officer about disclosure of fne information for whichit has objected' Such an appeal can be made within thirty days from the date of the receipt ofnotice from the Public lnformation Officer to tfi'e effect that he proposes to disclose theconcerned information. lf not satisfied wilh the decision of the First Appeilate Authority, the thirdparty can prefer the second appeal to the tnformation comrnission.Disposal of Appeal: ira^iriincfts---- !--. t^-F--.-.i--!t--. rs-iu..ig ul,Puq,s iIivEr rtts r\r! rlr,r r! a quat't-Ju(Jlclal tunclton, lI ls, tneretore,iiiji:i-;i;i-iU;'i-.i.'--.1i1-ii>1-;i!l!.'!|ttr.tl.--l rL---- ^tt-r- - - rt.should alsc appear to have beeii ciorre. in order to cio so, the orcer passed nV if.le"ep"i"tua'=ihcriiy sii+u!d be a speaki;ig urcier giuiiig jusiiiicaiion ior iire ciecision aniveci ai.5. .. lj gn appellate arlthority while deciding an appeal comes to a conclusion that theIt is the responsibility of the Public lnformation Officer of a public authority to suppty correctand complete information within the specified time to any person seeking inforrnation under theRTI Ac;t, 2005- There are possibilities that a Public lnformation offici,r may not act as perprovisions of the Act or an applicant may not otherwise be satisfied with the decision of thePublic lnformation officer. The Act contains provision of two appeals to tide over suchsituations. The first appeal lies within the public authority itself which is made to an officerdesignated as the First Appellate Authority by the conierned public autnorg. The FirstAppellate Authority happens to be an officer senior in rank to the pubtic lnformation Officer.The second appeal lies with the lnformation <strong>Commission</strong>. The Cenlral lnformation <strong>Commission</strong>(Apneal Procedure) Rules, 2005 govern the procedure for cleciding appeals by the Centrallnformation <strong>Commission</strong>-L^^l-^..1.4^,.--l:^J:-a--..-v'vs,v se ouyyrsu ilil!flilrcrurrrr llt auurtruil lo wr)al nas Oeen S;Upplled by the pUbliCannallanl----,ie...lnformation Officer, he may either (i) pass an orcier directing the Public lnformation Officer togive such information to the appellant; or (ii) he himself may glve information to the appellant. lnthe first case the appellate authority should ensure that tlre information ordered by'him to besupplied is supplied to the appellant immediately. lt would, however, be better if the appellateauthority chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the informationalongwith the order passed by him in the matter.6 lf, in any case, the Public lnformation Officer does not implement the order passed bythe appellate authority and the appellaie authority feels that intervention of higher authority iirequired to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice-of the officer inthe public authority competent to take action againit the Public lnforrnalion Officer. Such2t